TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company, the owners of the Fukushima nuclear power plant) is about to release 1.3 million tons of radioactive waste water from the Fukushima meltdown into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Japan, beginning around Summer 2023.
The science and Pacific Islands communities are pushing back because it is estimated that the radioactive material could affect life all over the Pacific Ocean, with dangerous environmental consequences on ocean life all the way up the food chain, including for humans.
Plus, it could destroy fishing communities in Japan, China, Korea, the Pacific Islands, and the West Coast of the US, impacting trillions of plant, animal, and human lives.
Publicly available scientific research or opinion papers.
*Not affiliated with savethepacificocean.net
PhD Marine Chemistry
Senior Scientist, Marine Chemistry & Geochemistry
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
PhD Engineering, Specializing in Nuclear Fusion
President & Board of Director Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
PhD Molecular Biology
Associate Professor and Director, Centre for Radiation Research Education and Innovation
The University of Adelaide
PhD High Energy Physics
Scientist-in-Residence, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Adjunct Professor, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey
PhD Biological Sciences
Research Professor and Director Kewalo Marine Laboratory
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Senior Nuclear Specialist
Pacific Islands Forum
Head of Marine Conservation Division
South Korean Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission
ME, BS Nuclear Engineering
Chief Engineer & Director
Fairewinds Energy Education
1. We urge TEPCO, the Japanese government, the NRA, and the IAEA to STOP THE DUMP. They have not proven their methods work. They have not operated with “scientific due diligence.” The health of the world is at stake.
2. We also ask the IAEA and NRA to update their nuclear dump standards to be in line with the latest science, which shows that tritium bioaccumulates and is dangerous to human and planetary health.
The Tokyo Electric Power Company claims that no more space is available for storage of the contaminated water, but this claim has been disputed. There is a lot of empty contaminated land adjacent to the property.
The loss could be so huge, that there is no model available large enough to calculate the damage at a planetary scale. We would have to consider the net revenues of all Pacific fisheries, coral reefs, tourism, recreation, scuba, surfing, aggregate medical and healthcare, unforeseen impact on oxygen production, planetary stability, and climate change. Purely financial estimates of singular natural resources have been created. For example, the Great Barrier Reef alone has an estimated annual value of $56 Billion US.
International Journal of Environment and Climate Change reports that the oceans are almost entirely responsible for climate change. Any avoidable planetary scale industrial contamination of the ocean must be carefully evaluated to direct impact on Climate Change.
Dumping radioactive material into the ocean is illegal. Since 1993, ocean disposal has been banned by international treaties, like the London Convention (1972), Basel Convention, and MARPOL 73/78. However, some exceptions exist in relation to land based “discharge” directly into each nation’s Exclusive Economic Zone. Japan would like to interpret this ocean discharge as a land based matter by constructing a 1km pipeline that will pump the waste into the ocean
Yes, International Maritime Organization (IMO) is a specialized agency of The United Nations (UN). And International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) is a tribunal process provided by IMO in order to resolve maritime disputes.
Because they’re a neutral judging body. They wait for people to bring cases to them, and to our knowledge, this case hasn’t yet been brought to them. It can be an expensive and long process. Smaller member states who don’t have as much power, like those close to Japan, can be afraid of initiating this process and “rocking the boat,” so to speak, politically. It would make more sense for South Korea, China, or the US, who have more power, to initiate.
There are 64 radioactive nuclides in the water, including strontium-90 (Sr-90), cesium-134 (Cs-134), cesium-137 (Cs-137), iodine-129 (I-129), ruthenium-106 (Ru-106), antimony-125 (Sb-125), and cobalt 60 (Co-60), carbon-14 (C-14) and tritium (T).
Considering the nuclides present in TEPCO’s water, if not removed properly, they could remain in the ocean for more than millions of years.
Yes, and that’s not good. The latest science says that tritium is not safe, but our regulatory standards have not yet caught up to the latest science.
There are many safer alternatives, including bioremediation and better storage. See our solutions matrix for more information.
YES. Technology outlined in our solutions matrix are all cheaper and safer ways of disposing of nuclear waste. The current discharge plan is estimated at a $500 Billion contract. More scoping needs to be done to estimate exactly how much it would cost to deploy the alternate solutions, but they are in the tens to hundreds of millions, not billions.
The compensation plan for families affected by the original disaster was analyzed to be $124 Billion. However, that was concentrated to the Fukushima area. In this case, the material would be less contained and could spread all over the Pacific.
Get updates as the situation unfolds, and receive the latest calls to action.